The Dynamics of a Cantilever

Research Question: How does the vertical depression of a cantilever

respond to a change in the distance at which an external force is
applied to the cantilever?

Physics Internal Assessment

 Introduction
Beams are an essential part of engineering. A beam which is rigidly connected at one end to a
fixed support and free to move at the other end is called a cantilever beam.1 Various
infrastructures such as traffic lights, roofs2, diving-boards, and bridges3 are constructed by
employing the fundamental knowledge of cantilevers.4

As a child, I played Jenga- a game which employs the concept of cantilevers to evoke
children’s interest. As the game progressed, more and more cantilevers5 were made, making
the game full of suspense. This curiosity rose further after realising the importance of
cantilevers in mechanical engineering because I often watch videos of bridges, balconies
and roofs collapsing just like the wooden blocks in Jenga. Hence, I decided to conduct an
experiment to analyse the behaviour of a cantilever.

I wanted to test a variable which is less commonly experimented. I chose the distance at
which the force is exerted on the cantilever as my independent variable. The aim of this
experiment is to analyse the behaviour of a cantilever and then answer the following research
question: How does the vertical depression of a cantilever respond to a change in the
distance at which an external force is applied to the cantilever?

Consider a cantilever, fixed at one end,

M, and loaded at a distance(cm), d. The
end, N, is depressed to N’ and s or [N’-N]
represents the vertical depression at the
free end. Note that N may not be at the
same height(cm) level as M. There can be
an initial vertical depression before any
external force is exerted on the cantilever.
The force exerted downwards by load- mg
Diagram 1. Cantilever Model
(Newtons), is equally and oppositely
opposed by reaction force, R, acting
upwards at the supported end M. If we exert the force at a distance farther from the
suspension point M than d, the vertical depression(cm) is theoretically going to increase.
However, as the force is exerted for longer periods of time and as the distance increases more
and more, the upper layer of the filaments at the point of suspension are more likely to get
elongated while the lower layer of filaments gets compressed. This may lead to a permanent
deformation of the cantilever.

1
Michels, W. C. (1956). International Dictionary of Physics and Electronics. New Jersey: Van Nostrand.
Retrieved from Questia School.
2
The Function and Aesthetics of Cantilevers. (n.d.). Retrieved August 26, 2017, from
http://blog.buildllc.com/2016/02/the-function-and-aesthetics-of-cantilevers/
3
Cantilever Bridge Facts, Design and History. (n.d.). Retrieved August 26, 2017, from
http://www.historyofbridges.com/facts-about-bridges/cantilever-bridge/
4
T. (n.d.). Cantilever. Retrieved July 28, 2017, from http://science.jrank.org/pages/1171/Cantilever.html
5
Smith, D. (2016, November 10). How to beat anyone at Jenga. Retrieved August 26, 2017, from
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/how-to-beat-anyone-at-jenga
The relationship between distance d and vertical depression s is determined below. It is not a
linear relationship, so I have used logarithms to linearize it:
s 𝖺 dn d = distance in centimetres
s = kd n
(Equation 1) s = vertical depression in centimetres
log(s) = log(kd )
n
n = constant
log(s) = log(dn) + log(k) k = constant
log(s) = nlog(d) + log(k) (Equation 2) 6

I have decided to measure the vertical depression(cm) for the distances(cm): 10,20,30,40,50,
60,70,80 and construct a relationship between s and d, by calculating n and k for the
cantilever in the experiment. I have chosen a cantilever with a low thickness (0.10cm) so that
the vertical depressions in the experiment are large and observable.

This research is significant because the relationships between the distance(cm) and vertical
depression(cm) of cantilevers can assist engineers to identify optimal lengths of materials for
their industrial projects. Hence, it is a crucial part of mechanical engineering.

Hypothesis
There is a logarithmic linear relationship between the distance(cm) at which the force is
exerted and the vertical depression(cm) on the cantilever, given that the force exerted on the
cantilever remains constant. This is in the form: log(s) = nlog(d) + log(k), or, s=kdn, where s
represents vertical depression (cm), d represents distance (cm), and k and n are constants.

Variables
Independent Variable: Distance of slotted-mass from cantilever’s point of suspension (cm).
The calibration on the beam is used to measure this variable. The slotted-mass is tied to a
string of negligible mass and hung. Masking tape ensures that the string does not slide.
Distance (cm) intervals are:10cm, 20cm, 30cm, 40cm, 50cm, 60cm, 70cm, 80cm.
Dependent Variable: Vertical depression of the cantilever beam (cm).
This is measured by placing a wooden ruler next to the end of the cantilever beam. Readings
are taken at eye-level using a set-square once the metal beam stops vibrating.
Controlled Variables:
Table 1. Identifying and analysing controlled variables
Variable to be controlled Why and how the variable is to be controlled

Mass of slotted-mass (g)
The force exerted on the cantilever is directly proportional to the mass of
the slotted-mass because Force=(mass)*(acceleration due to gravity),
where force is in Newtons and acceleration due to gravity is in ms-2.
Reduction in the mass will reduce the force, reducing the vertical
depression and vice versa.
Hence, this variable will be kept constant by using the same slotted-mass
of 99.9 grams (or 0.0999 kilograms) throughout the experiment.

6
Homer, D., & Bowen-Jones, M. (2014). Physics: course companion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
p17 Linearizing graphs
 The metal beam
(cantilever)
Length of metal beam
suspended from the table
Any changes in the length, width, thickness and material will change the
physical properties of the cantilever beam. This will affect the rate of
change of vertical depression (∆s) during the experiment.
Therefore, the easiest way to keep these properties controlled is by using
the same beam throughout the experiment.
If there is an increase in the length of beam suspended, the suspended
mass of the beam will increase, increasing the initial force (mg) on
the beam, causing a higher vertical depression. This change in vertical
depression can be mistaken as a change due to change in distance, and
this reduces the accuracy and precision of the results.
Therefore, a G-clamp will be firmly attached, so that the length of beam
suspended remains constant throughout the experiment.

Materials
Table 2. Showing materials and properties
Material Properties
1×Metal beam (a calibrated metal ruler) Length: 103cm; Width: 2.80cm, Thickness: 0.10cm
Vernier Caliper (measure beam’s properties) Uncertainty: (±0.01 cm)
1×Slotted-mass Mass: 99.9 grams
Electronic Balance Uncertainty: (±0.1 grams)
1×Wooden Ruler Length: 100cm; Uncertainty: (±0.05 cm)
1×G-Clamp -
Masking Tape -
String -
Table or Bench -

Method
Diagram 2. Showing the experimental set-up for the experiment

Observations and measurements before commencing

1. Ensure that the length of the metal beam on the table is 10 cm while the remaining 93
cm is suspended in air. This is easily ensured as the beam is calibrated.
2. Measure the mass of the slotted-mass using the electronic balance as it is a controlled
variable.
3. Ensure that the beam is not supported by any other solids apart from the table and G-
clamp.
4. Measure the initial vertical displacement using the wooden ruler. Avoid parallax error
by using a set square, or any other instrument, to take eye-level reading.
5. Calculate the initial vertical depression of the beam. The initial vertical depression is
the: (Displacement between the point of suspension and the floor – initial vertical
displacement).
Collection of Raw data
6. Move the string 10 cm along the calibrated beam. Put masking tape if the string slips
downwards and wait for the beam to become still.
7. Measure the vertical displacement using the wooden ruler from the end of beam to floor.
8. Measure the vertical displacement for the other distances(cm): 20,30,40,50,60,70,80.
9. Similarly collect raw data for trial 2 and trial 3 by repeating steps 6,7 and
8. Processing the Raw data
10. Calculate the vertical depression using the formula:
Vertical depression (cm) = (Displacement between the point of suspension and the
floor – Vertical displacement)

Risk Assessment
There are no significant risk assessments. However, metal beam has sharp edges and should
be used carefully when taking eye-level reading. The string used to hang the slotted-mass
breaks frequently during the experiment, so anything placed below the set-up will be
damaged. A cushion can be placed at bottom to prevent damages to the lab flooring. This is a
safe experiment with little to no environmental and ethical issues in the methodology.

Data and Analysis

Table 3. Raw data showing distance(cm) and vertical displacement(cm)

Vertical displacement between the end of the beam from the
floor a/ cm
∆𝑐𝑚 = ±0.1
Distance Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Mean Displacement
d/ cm a/ cm
∆𝑐𝑚 = ±0.05
0.0 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 ± 0.0
10.0 43.7 44.3 42.6 43.5 ± 0.9
20.0 41.5 41.8 40.2 41.2 ± 0.8
30.0 39.0 38.6 38.0 38.5 ± 0.5
40.0 36.0 35.6 34.9 35.5 ± 0.6
50.0 33.2 32.2 31.8 32.4 ± 0.7
60.0 28.1 27.7 27.1 27.6 ± 0.5
70.0 26.1 25.9 25.1 25.7 ± 0.5
80.0 24.5 24.0 23.5 24.0 ± 0.5
All data in Table 3 except the uncertainty for the distance column has been formatted to 1
decimal place. The uncertainty of ±0.05 is important for calculating the uncertainty of the
trials in Table 4 and hence has not been formatted to 1 decimal place.
Data Calculation
Example 1
The mean vertical displacement for row 2 Calculation of uncertainty of mean vertical
in Table 3 was calculated using the displacement for row 2:
formula: (𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒)
2
(𝑎 + 𝑎 + 𝑎 )
1 2 3
(44.3−42.6)
3 = 2
(43.7 + 44.3 + 42.6) = ±0.85 cm
= 3
= 43.53 cm = ±0.9 cm (1 decimal place)
= 43.5 cm (1 decimal place)
Table 4. Processed data showing distance(cm) and vertical depression(cm)
Vertical depression of the beam
s/ cm
∆𝑐𝑚 = ±0.1
Distance Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Mean Depression
d/ cm s/ cm
∆𝑐𝑚 = ±0.1
0.0 46.3 46.3 46.3 46.3 ± 0.0
10.0 47.1 46.5 48.2 47.3 ± 0.9
20.0 49.3 49.0 50.6 49.6 ± 0.8
30.0 51.8 52.2 52.8 52.3 ± 0.5
40.0 54.8 55.2 55.9 55.3 ± 0.6
50.0 57.6 58.6 59.0 58.4 ± 0.7
60.0 62.7 63.1 63.7 63.2 ± 0.5
70.0 64.7 64.9 65.7 65.1 ± 0.5
80.0 66.3 66.8 67.3 66.8 ± 0.5

Data Calculation
Example 2
The vertical depression for the first trial and first row was calculated using the formula:
(Displacement between the point of suspension and the floor) – (Vertical displacement)
= 90.8 – 44.5
= 46.3 cm
Calculation of uncertainty for the vertical depression of the beam:
= (±0.05) + (±0.05)
= ±0.10
= ±0.1 cm (1 decimal place)
Example 3
The mean vertical depression for second row in Table 4 was calculated using the formula:
(𝑠1 + 𝑠2 + 𝑠3)
= 3
 (47.1 + 46.5 + 48.2)
= 3
= 47.27 cm
= 47.3 cm (1 decimal place)
Calculation of uncertainty of mean vertical depression for row 2:
Range (48.2 − 46.5)
2 = 2
= ±0.85 cm
= ±0.9 cm (1 decimal place)
Graphical Analysis
Graph 1. Showing a cubic relationship between distance and mean depression

Graph showing a cubic relationship between distance and depression

70.0 05x3 + 0.0077x2 + 0.
68.0
y = -6E- 0152x + .406
66.0 R² = 0.9972 46
64.0
62.0
Mean Depression

60.0
58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
48.0
46.0
44.0
42.0 0.010.020.030.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
40.0 Distance (cm)
Graph 2, showing a quadratic relationship between distance and mean depression

Graph showing a quadratic relationship between distance and depression

y = 0.0007x2 + 0.2264x + 45.426
70.0
68.0
66.0 R² = 0.9872
64.0
62.0
Mean Depression

60.0
58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
48.0
46.0
44.0
0.010.020.030.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
42.0
Distance (cm)
40.0
Graph 3, showing a linear relationship between distance and mean depression

70.0 Graph showing a linear relationship between distance and depression

68.0 y = 0.2812x + 44.787
66.0 R² = 0.9842
64.0
62.0
Mean Depression

60.0
58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
48.0
46.0
44.0
42.0 0.010.020.030.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
40.0 Distance (cm)

Data collected and graphs support a cubic relationship because Graph 1 intersects 8 out of 9
plotted error bars (Distance (cm) = 0, 10,20,30,40,50,70,80), whereas Graph 2 intersects 6
out of 9 plotted error bars (Distance (cm) = 10,20,30,40,50,70) and Graph 3 intersects 4
(Distance (cm) = 10,20,50,80). This is contradictory7 to the hypothesis. The reason for the
cubic relationship could be the deformation of the metal beam during the experiment.
However, this needs to be proven.

Data in Table 4 suggests that deformation has taken place. This is because range for the final
6 distances is derived using the formula: (Trial 3 - Trial 1), as the 3rd trial consistently had
the largest magnitude and the 1st trial had the lowest. There is an increasing trend in the
magnitude of vertical depressions as the trials are carried out.
Table 5. showing evidence of deformation on the beam
Distance Vertical depressions of the beam for the three
d/ cm trials s/ cm
∆𝑐𝑚 = ±0.1 ∆𝑐𝑚 = ±0.1
Trial 1 < Trial 2 < Trial 3
30.0 51.8 < 52.2 < 52.8
40.0 54.8 < 55.2 < 55.9
50.0 57.6 < 58.6 < 59.0
60.0 62.7 < 63.1 < 63.7
70.0 64.7 < 64.9 < 65.7
80.0 66.3 < 66.8 < 67.3

7
Gleason, R. E. (n.d.). On the Complete Logarithmic Solution of the Cubic Equation[PDF]. Annals of
Mathematics.
Also, when the distance (cm) is 10.0 and 20.0, the largest vertical depression is in Trial 3.
Therefore, Trial 3 has the largest vertical depression in all 8 trials and Trial 1 has the lowest
vertical depression in 6 consecutive data recordings. It can now be concluded that the beam
was an inelastic body because it did not return to its original state after deformation. This led
to results which support a cubic relationship.
Since deformation is proven, a logarithmic linear relationship can be constructed, in line with
the hypothesis, between distance and mean vertical depression:
log(s) = nlog(d) + log(k)
d = distance n = constant (gradient)
s = mean vertical depression k = constant (log(k) is y-intercept)
Table 6. converting the data into logarithmic form
Distance Log (d) Mean Depression Log (s)
d/ cm s/ cm
∆𝑐𝑚 = ±0.10
10.000 1.000 47.300 ± 0.900 1.675 ± 0.008
20.000 1.301 49.600 ± 0.800 1.695 ± 0.007
30.000 1.477 52.300 ± 0.500 1.718 ± 0.004
40.000 1.602 55.300 ± 0.600 1.743 ± 0.005
50.000 1.699 58.400 ± 0.700 1.766 ± 0.005
60.000 1.778 63.200 ± 0.500 1.801 ± 0.003
70.000 1.845 65.100 ± 0.500 1.814 ± 0.003
80.000 1.903 66.800 ± 0.500 1.825 ± 0.003

Data has been formatted to 3 decimal places because the maximum place value for the
uncertainties is thousandths8.
Data calculation
Example 4
Calculating uncertainty in logarithmic Calculation of log (s) and its uncertainty for
calculations: row 1 in Table 6:
0.900
Log(s) = log10(s) Log (s) = log10 47.300 ± 0.434×( )
±log(s) = uncertainty of log(s) 47.300
±s = uncertainty of s Log (s) = 1.6749 ± 0.00826 (3 decimal places)
Log (s) = 1.675 ± 0.008
±log(s) = 0.434 × (±𝒔) (Equation 3)9
𝒔

The equation that defines the relationship between distance and vertical depression of the
cantilever used in this experiment can be derived by plotting a graph.

8
Place Value. (n.d.). Retrieved August 05, 2017, from
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/math/decimals/placevalue/
9
Error Propagation in Arithmetic Calculations[PDF]. (n.d.).
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~toh/models/ErrorPropagation.pdf
Graph 4, showing a logarithmic linear relationship between distance and mean depression

Graph showing a logarithmic linear relationship between distance and mean

1.850
depression y = 0.1761x + 1.4771 R2=0.92237
1.840
1.830
1.820
1.810
1.800
1.790
1.780
1.770
Log

1.760
1.750
1.740
1.730
1.720
1.710
1.700
1.690
1.6801.000 1.050 1.100 1.150 1.200 1.250 1.300 1.350 1.400 1.450 1.500 1.550 1.600 1.650 1.700 1.750 1.800 1.850 1.900 1.950
1.670 Log (d)
1.660
log(s) = nlog(d) + log(k)
1.650 s = kdn
log(k) = 1.477 (y-intercept) k = 101.477 = 30.0
n = 0.176 (gradient) s = 30.0d0.176 (Equation 5)
log(s) = 0.176log(d) + 1.477 (Equation 4)

The line of best-fit in Graph 4 does not intersect any plotted error bars. At first, this line was
manually steepened to intersect more error bars. However, since the previous lines of best-fit
were auto-generated by the software, this line was left unaltered. Furthermore, worst fit
lines do not intersect most points either, so calculating uncertainty in the equation
would not be useful. However, the equation is verified below by calculating the percentage
difference between measured and calculated vertical depressions. Be the differences
negligible, the equation is accepted, and vice-versa.

Table 7. Comparing the measured and calculated data

Distance Measured depression Calculated depression Difference % Difference
d/ cm s1/cm s2/cm z/cm z’/%
s2 = 30.0d0.176 z = |s1-s2| z’ = ( 𝑧 )(100)
𝑠1

10 47.3 ± 0.9 45.0 2.30 4.86%

20 49.6 ± 0.8 50.8 1.20 2.42%
30 52.3 ± 0.5 54.6 2.30 4.40%
40 55.3 ± 0.6 57.4 2.10 3.80%
50 58.4 ± 0.7 59.7 1.30 2.23%
60 63.2 ± 0.5 61.7 1.50 2.37%
70 65.1 ± 0.5 63.4 1.70 2.61%
80 66.8 ± 0.5 64.9 1.90 2.84%
The percentage differences are negligible (largest is 4.86%). z is very small compared to s1.
Hence, the data collected supports the equation and the equation is accepted.

Conclusion
This was an experiment to apply the cantilever theory on an actual cantilever and determine
the relationship between distance(cm) and vertical depression(cm).
After collecting and processing the data from the experiment, it can be concluded that the
results support the hypothesis. “Given that the force exerted on the cantilever remains
constant”, there is evidence of a “logarithmic linear relationship between the distance(cm) at
which the force is exerted and the vertical depression(cm) on the cantilever”. First, the mean
vertical displacement was measured, stated in Table 3, which was then used to calculate
mean vertical depression in Table 4. Then, the relationship between distance(cm) and vertical
depression(cm) was determined using Graphs 1,2 and 3. The data was converted into
logarithmic form in Table 6 and plotted in Graph 4 where variables n and k, also proposed in
the hypothesis, were calculated using the trend-line in Graph 4. The following equations
were formed:
log(s) = 0.176log(d) + 1.477 (Equation 4)
s=30d0.176 (Equation 5)
The equations are rearrangements of each other. Random and systematic errors led to the line
of best fit in Graph 4 not intersecting any error bars. This is largely due to deformation of the
cantilever that is also listed in introduction- “This may lead to a permanent deformation of
the cantilever.”, and is proven using Table 5. A modification in the methodology, which is
stated in the Evaluation, can help reduce this error. Nevertheless, this equation was
verified in Table 7 by comparing the magnitudes of vertical depression calculated using the
equation, with the magnitudes of mean vertical depression measured in the experiment. The
negligible percentage differences (highest being 4.86% and lowest being 2.23%) between the
calculated and measured vertical depressions support the acceptance of this equation.
Hence, the research question: “How does the vertical depression of a cantilever respond
to a change in the distance at which an external force is applied to the cantilever?” was
worthy of investigation and is answered: As theory answers it qualitatively, a cantilever
was tested to answer this question quantitatively. The response of vertical depression of the
cantilever to a change in the distance at which an external force is applied to the cantilever is
in the form: s=30d0.176, or, log(s) = 0.176log(d) + 1.477, where s represents vertical
depression in centimetres, d represents distance in centimetres (10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80).

Evaluation
Further research suggestions
The relationship between distance and vertical depression can be calculated for diving boards
to help divers determine where they should jump from on the diving board based on their
mass. This captures my interest because I will be able to apply Physics to real-life situations.

Weaknesses, improvement and strengths

The experiment was acceptably accurate and precise. While it was conducted within the
parameters of a school lab, some improvements in the methodology and investigation can
improve the accuracy of this research.
 Table 8. Possible systematic errors

Source of error Significance & evidence Improvements

and its effect

Systematic errors affecting accuracy

Beam High significance because the Deformation is a natural phenomenon. But, a change in
deformation: The beam was supposed to be a methodology so that initial vertical depression (when
deformation of controlled variable. As it got distance(cm) = 0) is calculated before each trial, instead
the metal beam deformed, the vertical depression of only at the start of the experiment, can reduce the
increased the increased as the time of the error. For example- if the initial vertical depression for
magnitude of experiment increased. The Trial 2 is significantly higher than Trial 1, it can be
vertical precision and accuracy of the inferred that the beam is deformed and it can be
depression as the data and the equations decreased. replaced by a new identical beam before continuing the
experiment Evidence is shown in Table 5. experiment. Thicker beams can be used as they are
progressed. unlikely to deform as much the beam used.

Random errors affecting precision

String length: The string used to
hang slotted-mass from the beam
broke thrice and the length of the
string was not kept constant.
Furthermore, the masking tape
obscures vision from seeing that the
string is placed at the right point.
Low significance because
the force exerted is [mass ×
gravity] and the length of
string is not a factor. The
masking tape is necessary
to prevent the string from
sliding.
Use a string that is not made of a series of
intertwined and twisted fibres because these
fibres can break and weaken the string.
Groove the beam at points where the mass
is to be hung. This prevents string from
sliding. Or, scotch tape can be used for
transparent vision.

Wooden ruler calibration: It is
calibrated to 1 decimal place which
creates an uncertainty of 0.05cm in
every reading. So, the actual
vertical displacement could be
higher or lower.
Low significance because
an uncertainty of 0.05cm is
small. (less than 1%
percentage uncertainty). So,
precision is barely affected.
An increase in the number of trials
can reduce the significance of this
error.

Parallax error: Although readings
were taken at eye-level, there are
differences between the apparent
and real magnitude of readings.
So, the actual reading could be
higher or lower.
High significance as we
cannot quantify the
uncertainty this factor has
caused. It contributes to
inaccuracy in
measurements.
Take eye-level readings from a fixed point
at a fixed distance to prevent changes in the
apparent magnitudes of readings. This way,
the readings will have higher precision. To
improve accuracy, use inch tape instead of
a wooden ruler at it is more adjustable.

Table 10. Possible strengths and their effects

Strength Effect

Beam with the smallest
magnitude of
thickness, 0.10cm, was
chosen.
String was used to hang
the slotted-mass instead
of sticking the mass to
the beam.
The beam’s ∆vertical depression and ∆vertical displacement was higher than
other beams in the lab. This reduced the proportion between errors and vertical
depressions, making the results more precise.
If the slotted-mass was stuck to the beam, the force would spread across the area
of slotted-mass that is in contact with the beam instead of being applied only at
the distance required. The string has a negligible surface area , making it easier
to make sure that the force is only applied at the distance required.
 Bibliography

Internet

1. A physics teacher. (n.d.). Retrieved August 07, 2017, from

http://aphysicsteacher.blogspot.co.id/2009/12/what-is-parallax-error.html
2. Bele Ndez, T., Neipp, C., & Bele Ndez, A. (n.d.). Numerical and
Experimental Analysis of a Cantilever Beam: a Laboratory Project to Introduce
Geometric Nonlinearity in Mechanics of Materials*[PDF]. Great Britain: 2003
TEMPUS Publications.
3. Cantilever Bridge Facts, Design and History. (n.d.). Retrieved August 26, 2017,
from http://www.historyofbridges.com/facts-about-bridges/cantilever-bridge/
4. Cantilever Lab IB Physics IA. (n.d.). Retrieved August 26, 2017, from
https://www.scribd.com/Mandoc/131806274/Cantilever-Lab-IB-Physics-IA
5. Error Propagation in Arithmetic Calculations[PDF]. (n.d.).
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~toh/models/ErrorPropagation.pdf
6. Gleason, R. E. (n.d.). On the Complete Logarithmic Solution of the
Cubic Equation[PDF]. Annals of Mathematics.
7. Lessons From the Failure of a Great Machine. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2017, from
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TNBhistory/Machine/machine3.htm
8. Michels, W. C. (1956). International Dictionary of Physics and Electronics. New
Jersey: Van Nostrand. Retrieved from Questia School.
9. Place Value. (n.d.). Retrieved August 05, 2017, from
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/math/decimals/placevalue/
10. Random Error and Systematic Error. (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2017, from
https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/rallain/plab193/labinfo/Error_Ana
lysis/05_Random_vs_Systematic.html
11. Sheela, N. R., Dr. (n.d.). Engineering Physics-I PH 6151[PDF].
12. Smith, D. (2016, November 10). How to beat anyone at Jenga. Retrieved August
26, 2017, from http://www.wired.co.uk/article/how-to-beat-anyone-at-jenga
13. Sönnerlind, H. (2015, September 14). What Is Geometric Nonlinearity? Retrieved
July 3, 2017, from https://www.comsol.com/blogs/what-is-geometric-nonlinearity/
14. The Function and Aesthetics of Cantilevers. (n.d.). Retrieved August 26, 2017,
from http://blog.buildllc.com/2016/02/the-function-and-aesthetics-of-cantilevers/
15. T. (n.d.). Cantilever. Retrieved July 28, 2017, from
http://science.jrank.org/pages/1171/Cantilever.html
16. Uppu, R. (n.d.). CANTILEVER BEAMS[PDF].

Books

1. Hamper, C., & Drabble, G. (2014). Higher level physics: supporting every learner
across the IB continuum. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
2. Homer, D., & Bowen-Jones, M. (2014). Physics: course companion. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
3. Kirk, T. (2014). Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Kirk, T., & Hodgson, N. (2012). Physics: course companion. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
5. Tsokos, K. (2014). Physics: for the IB Diploma. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.